Kagan
I listened to as much of the Kagan confirmation hearings as I had time for, and found it to be one of the most fascinating events conducted by our senior legislative body in recent memory. I was fascinated not so much by the depth of Kagan’s testimony (or lack thereof), but more so by the way the judiciary committee members utilized their time for questioning. For the most part the Senators saw it as yet another opportunity to bask in the spotlight as they asked questions that were less about drawing out meaningful testimony from Kagan than they were about making political points for the constituents paying attention at home. Senator Sessions’ closing statement was a particularly annoying example of this. At least some of the Senators did their homework and acted like they know what they were talking about. I found interesting Senator Franken’s long-winded but intelligent questions regarding antitrust laws and their applications to the proposed Comcast-NBC merger.
In the end, we found that Kagan is an abundantly learned scholar and practitioner of law and an irrepressible and witty personality. On the more substantive matters regarding what type of a judge she would be, we are less clear despite the popular narrative that she is in the “mainstream.” The NRA appears sufficiently concerned about her position on gun control to publicly oppose her nomination. In the past she has given money to pro-abortion groups. While claiming not to embrace a primacy of international law, she holds that it can be turned to for guidance. Her stances on these three issues alone will send up all manner of red flags for conservatives.
Beyond that is the fact that if Kagan is confirmed, she will be around for a very long time as she is only 50 years of age.
If Kagan is confirmed, I will have to wonder if the charm factor played a factor in any votes, because as a personality she is hard not to like.
JD Hayworth Demonstrates Juvenile Behavior, Defaces Image of McCain
What was Hayworth thinking?
AZCentral.com quotes McCain’s response:
“’Ex-Congressman J.D. Hayworth should immediately apologize and and take down his latest online ad, which is an outrageous offense to John McCain’s lifetime of honorable service to our state and nation, and insulting to Native Americans here in Arizona and across America,’ said Shiree Verdone, McCain’s campaign manager.”
Farouk! Farouk! Farouk Is On Fire!
This is the most unbelievable campaign video so far this campaign year.
By The Numbers | Washington Examiner
By The Numbers | Washington Examiner.
Almost a million dollars in stimulus funds will provide smokers in DC with Blackberries. #FAIL
What is Terrorism?
This morning a close friend emailed me this article from CNN about this morning’s plane crash in Austin and pointed out the quote, “federal authorities said preliminary information did not indicate any terrorist connection.” My friend asked incredulously, “How is this not a terrorist attack?”
The question reminded me of a comment I made recently on Facebook where I said that in today’s discourse the word terrorism is inextricably linked with Islamic extremism. Commenters largely disagreed with that assertion, strongly objecting to what one termed a highly “narrow” defintion of the word. That narrow definition may not be accurate by Daniel Webster, but it effectively characterizes how the word is used by most non-academics around us.
After taking a moment to think about my friend’s question and my Facebook discussion on the same subject, I posed the question to the Twitterverse. I asked if the Austin plane crash qualified as terrorism. Immediately my friend @mjsamuelson –one of the most intelligent and energetic political activists I’ve ever met–responded “Not since 9/11. From that point “terrorism” had a different connotation.”
Back when Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, it was always referred to as terrorism. The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, was also frequently described as a terrorist. Yet today news outlets, federal officials, and many citizens refused to call the deliberate crashing of a private plane into a building full of civilians an act of terrorism.
Is it so that the definition of the word “terrorism” changed on September 11, 2001?
George Washington’s Circular Letter of 1783
While serving as commander-in-chief of the Continental Armies George Washington annually sent letters to the government of each of the several states. So Joseph J. Ellis tells us in his Pulitzer winner Founding Brothers. Particularly notable is the Circular Letter of 1783, wherein Washington offers a profound vision of America that I think is worth considering:
“The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, and acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are from this period, to be considered as Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designed by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity.”
After wading through superfluous capitalization and strings of clauses laced together with no period in sight, I find the following meaning in Washington’s observation:
Now blessed with freedom from British rule, Americans were in the ultimate position to do what no man had comprehended prior. With unprecedented individual liberty afforded by a remarkable republican government and placed on a continent teeming with every imaginable natural resource, Americans had no excuse for not exhibiting human greatness and happiness. Indeed, given the extraordinary nature of this opportunity, it was only to be expected that the world’s eyes would be on the newly formed nation. The circumstances were such that it was as if God had created the moment for some specific reason, and we for whatever reason were the chosen for the event.
With privilege comes an equal measure of responsibility, and certainly if we look at Washington’s letter through that lense I think we find that rightly much has been expected of America and continues to be expected of us. It is incumbent upon us to strive to maintain our worthiness of what Washington described. Doubtful some may detect in all this a note of the American Exceptionalism which offends some contemporary observers. I contend that the unique facts of our nation’s genesis simply set the bar higher, and it is not arrogance that should arise from that outlook but rather the challenge of being the best we can be. Despite self-inflicted wounds that have shamed the vision, America remains the singular place with the least intrusion upon one’s ambition–one’s pursuit of happiness if you will.
If we should fail to be happy and prosperous, the fault is only ours, said Washington. Something to think about as we look at what has brought us to where we are today as a nation, and likewise as we look at where we are headed.
Poll Says Obama SOTU is #EPICFAIL
Politico has a poll right now asking respondents to rate Obama’s State of the Union speech. 42% give him an F, 30% give him an A. 2781 Respondents as of 10:45 CST.
